High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Santosh Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Raj Kappor Verma) is languishing in jail since 07.08.2021 in Case Crime No.159 of 2021, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Jahangirganj, District- Ambedkar Nagar. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

3. This is third bail application as first bail application bearing Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 14174 of 2021 has been dismissed for want of prosecution by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh. Second bail application has been rejected on merit vide order dated 03.01.2024 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2987 of 2023. The order dated 03.01.2024 reads as under: "This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 01.11.2022 by the coordinate Bench of this Court. Prosecution case is that on 28.07.2021, a dead body of a woman aged about 35 years was found in village Shyampur Alaupur, P.S. Jahangirganj, District Ambedkar Nagar. One village Pradhan namely Sanjeev Kumar informed the police on 28.07.2021 about the unknown dead body. The dead body was subjected to postmortem and thereafter last ritual and cremation was done. It is alleged that brother of the deceased came across about missing of his sister on 30.07.2021 when she did not turned up in brambhoj organized in lieu of his deceased father. The dead body of the deceased was identified by her brother through her clothes and photographs. It is also alleged that family members of the deceased including the present applicant have committed murder of the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. There is no evidence against him. The deceased was wife of the applicant and often used to quarrel with him. He has not committed crime and neither has harassed the deceased regarding demand of dowry. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.08.2021 without having any criminal antecedent. Per contra learned AGA has drawn attention of the Court towards the postmortem report wherein cause of death is hemorrhage and shock due to antemortem head injury. In the postmortem there are two antemortem head injuries. It has been further submitted by the learned AGA that the independent witnesses Ghanshyam Prajapati and Sanjay Verma have given the last seen evidence against the applicant. They have stated that on 24.07.2021 in the midnight they saw the deceased going towards the primary school and she was followed by her husband namely Raj Kapoor Verma (applicant) who was having iron rod in his hand. On 27.07.2021 they came to know that a dead body of an unknown woman has been found. It has been further submitted by the learned AGA that not only this, the minor daughter of the deceased Sapna Verma and Kanchan have stated that on 24.07.2021, the applicant came in intoxicated state and started beating the deceased. Both the sisters started crying and then neighbors came who intervened. In the morning, whenever, they woke up, did not find their mother and ultimately on 28.07.2021, they came to know that a dead body of an unknown woman has been found near Pikiya River. It has been further submitted by the learned AGA that chain of circumstance is complete. The applicant is husband of the deceased; he has destroyed the evidence and has not been informed about the missing or the death of the deceased to her brother/parents or to the police station. He lastly submits that it is a heinous offence and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Perused the record. Postmortem report of the deceased depicts following antemortem injuries:- "1. contusion over left side of head just above to left ear size 8 cm x 5 cm bone. Brain matter loose. This injuries is assured as per haemolysis under head. Deformity seen.

2. Contusion over mid of left leg size 5 cm x 3 cm" Cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries; applicant is the husband of the deceased; last seen evidence has been given by Ghanshyam Prajapati and Sanjay Verma who in their statement have stated that on 24.07.2021, they saw the applicant was having iron rod in his hand and he was following his wife in the midnight. This statement of two independent witnesses further corroborated by the statement of the minor children of the applicant and the deceased who in their statement have stated that on the same day i.e. on 24.07.2021, the applicant came in the intoxicated state and started beating the deceased and on the next date i.e. 25.07.2021, the deceased went missing. Considering the totality of the material, so also the argument of the learned AGA; prima facie there appears ample material against the applicant showing his complicity, I am of the opinion that it is a heinous offence and the bail application is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant Raj Kappor Verma involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 159/2021, under Sections 147/302/201/498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Jahangirganj, District - Ambedkar Nagar, is hereby rejected. Learned trial court is directed expedite the trial preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order"

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that while rejecting the second bail application on 03.01.2024, this Court directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial within a period of one year but more than one years and six months' period has passed, the trial has not been concluded. He has further submitted that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, only four prosecution witnesses have been examined. The aforesaid fact has been verified by the report of learned trial court dated 11.03.2025, which has been filed pursuant to the order of this Court, which indicates that four prosecution witnesses have been examined, mainly the fact witnesses have been examined and one expert witness, namely, Dr. Ashish Kumar Rai has already been examined. Learned counsel for the applicant has therefore submitted that since all fact / relevant witnesses have been examined and examination of one expert witness i.e. Dr. Ashish Kumar Rai has been examined considering the total period of incarceration and the fact that there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future and also the fact that despite the direction being issued by this Court to conclude the trial within a period of one year, the trial has not been concluded, therefore, that fact may be considered as a fresh ground to consider the third bail application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Besides, he has referred the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, six fact/ material witnesses have been examined, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that the applicant undertakes that he shall co- operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid bail application but could not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. However, he has stated that the allegation against the present applicant is very serious but so far as the pace of trial is concerned that is beyond his control and if this Court has directed to conclude the trial within time frame, the same should have been concluded within time.

7. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court while rejecting the second bail application on 03.01.2024 to conclude the trial within a period of one year, about one year and six months' period has passed, the trial has not been concluded till date. Further, fact/ relevant witnesses have been examined and still some prosecution witnesses are to be examined, thereafter the defence witnesses would be examined, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) and Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra); the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. about four years and undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant (Raj Kappor Verma) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Santosh Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Raj Kappor Verma) is languishing in jail since 07.08.2021 in Case Crime No.159 of 2021, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Jahangirganj, District- Ambedkar Nagar. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

3. This is third bail application as first bail application bearing Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 14174 of 2021 has been dismissed for want of prosecution by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh. Second bail application has been rejected on merit vide order dated 03.01.2024 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2987 of 2023. The order dated 03.01.2024 reads as under: "This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 01.11.2022 by the coordinate Bench of this Court. Prosecution case is that on 28.07.2021, a dead body of a woman aged about 35 years was found in village Shyampur Alaupur, P.S. Jahangirganj, District Ambedkar Nagar. One village Pradhan namely Sanjeev Kumar informed the police on 28.07.2021 about the unknown dead body. The dead body was subjected to postmortem and thereafter last ritual and cremation was done. It is alleged that brother of the deceased came across about missing of his sister on 30.07.2021 when she did not turned up in brambhoj organized in lieu of his deceased father. The dead body of the deceased was identified by her brother through her clothes and photographs. It is also alleged that family members of the deceased including the present applicant have committed murder of the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. There is no evidence against him. The deceased was wife of the applicant and often used to quarrel with him. He has not committed crime and neither has harassed the deceased regarding demand of dowry. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.08.2021 without having any criminal antecedent. Per contra learned AGA has drawn attention of the Court towards the postmortem report wherein cause of death is hemorrhage and shock due to antemortem head injury. In the postmortem there are two antemortem head injuries. It has been further submitted by the learned AGA that the independent witnesses Ghanshyam Prajapati and Sanjay Verma have given the last seen evidence against the applicant. They have stated that on 24.07.2021 in the midnight they saw the deceased going towards the primary school and she was followed by her husband namely Raj Kapoor Verma (applicant) who was having iron rod in his hand. On 27.07.2021 they came to know that a dead body of an unknown woman has been found. It has been further submitted by the learned AGA that not only this, the minor daughter of the deceased Sapna Verma and Kanchan have stated that on 24.07.2021, the applicant came in intoxicated state and started beating the deceased. Both the sisters started crying and then neighbors came who intervened. In the morning, whenever, they woke up, did not find their mother and ultimately on 28.07.2021, they came to know that a dead body of an unknown woman has been found near Pikiya River. It has been further submitted by the learned AGA that chain of circumstance is complete. The applicant is husband of the deceased; he has destroyed the evidence and has not been informed about the missing or the death of the deceased to her brother/parents or to the police station. He lastly submits that it is a heinous offence and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Perused the record. Postmortem report of the deceased depicts following antemortem injuries:- "1. contusion over left side of head just above to left ear size 8 cm x 5 cm bone. Brain matter loose. This injuries is assured as per haemolysis under head. Deformity seen.

2. Contusion over mid of left leg size 5 cm x 3 cm" Cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries; applicant is the husband of the deceased; last seen evidence has been given by Ghanshyam Prajapati and Sanjay Verma who in their statement have stated that on 24.07.2021, they saw the applicant was having iron rod in his hand and he was following his wife in the midnight. This statement of two independent witnesses further corroborated by the statement of the minor children of the applicant and the deceased who in their statement have stated that on the same day i.e. on 24.07.2021, the applicant came in the intoxicated state and started beating the deceased and on the next date i.e. 25.07.2021, the deceased went missing. Considering the totality of the material, so also the argument of the learned AGA; prima facie there appears ample material against the applicant showing his complicity, I am of the opinion that it is a heinous offence and the bail application is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant Raj Kappor Verma involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 159/2021, under Sections 147/302/201/498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Jahangirganj, District - Ambedkar Nagar, is hereby rejected. Learned trial court is directed expedite the trial preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order"

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that while rejecting the second bail application on 03.01.2024, this Court directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial within a period of one year but more than one years and six months' period has passed, the trial has not been concluded. He has further submitted that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, only four prosecution witnesses have been examined. The aforesaid fact has been verified by the report of learned trial court dated 11.03.2025, which has been filed pursuant to the order of this Court, which indicates that four prosecution witnesses have been examined, mainly the fact witnesses have been examined and one expert witness, namely, Dr. Ashish Kumar Rai has already been examined. Learned counsel for the applicant has therefore submitted that since all fact / relevant witnesses have been examined and examination of one expert witness i.e. Dr. Ashish Kumar Rai has been examined considering the total period of incarceration and the fact that there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future and also the fact that despite the direction being issued by this Court to conclude the trial within a period of one year, the trial has not been concluded, therefore, that fact may be considered as a fresh ground to consider the third bail application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Besides, he has referred the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, six fact/ material witnesses have been examined, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that the applicant undertakes that he shall co- operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid bail application but could not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. However, he has stated that the allegation against the present applicant is very serious but so far as the pace of trial is concerned that is beyond his control and if this Court has directed to conclude the trial within time frame, the same should have been concluded within time.

7. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court while rejecting the second bail application on 03.01.2024 to conclude the trial within a period of one year, about one year and six months' period has passed, the trial has not been concluded till date. Further, fact/ relevant witnesses have been examined and still some prosecution witnesses are to be examined, thereafter the defence witnesses would be examined, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) and Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra); the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. about four years and undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant (Raj Kappor Verma) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench